Salvato: Don't Blame SCOTUS, it was Obama's Bait and Switch

By Frank SalvatoJune 29, 2012 6:50 am

Text Size:AAA

I have become increasingly depressed about the fact that “truth” has become subservient – if not non-existent – in our culture today, and especially in our political culture. The recent US Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare – or the Affordable Care Act, if you will – is a perfect example. While many on the Right, and people who I respect greatly, condemn the SCOTUS – and especially Chief Justice John Roberts – for their decision to uphold the individual mandate, not under the Commerce Clause but as a tax, they misdirect their ire. SCOTUS ruled constitutionally and honestly on the argument presented to them. The Right’s anger – the American people’s fury – should instead be directed at the Obama Administration and its Progressive minions for executing one of the most egregious “bait and switch” schemes ever perpetrated on the American people.

If you take a moment to think back to when Congress was debating Obamacare, you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a congressional Democrat or an Obama Administration mouthpiece that wasn’t adamant in their denial that the Affordable Care Act was a tax. President Obama himself is quoted on numerous occasions as saying, without reservation and with clarity, that under no circumstances and in now way, shape or form, was his signature agenda item a “tax.” And as we approached the vote on Obamacare in Congress, congressional Democrats, Obama Administration operatives, union activists and special interest groups flooded the media with specific declarations that stated clearly that the Affordable Care Act was not a tax. Bottom line, the American people were assured that this initiative was not a tax, “cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye.” Well, everyone who ever made this claim lied, and it didn’t take the SCOTUS ruling to prove it.

As soon as the Obama Administration’s lawyers took to the podium at the US Supreme Court to defend the Affordable Care Act against the myriad lawsuits brought against it, the Department of Justice lawyers immediately identified the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – as a tax in order to avoid the SCOTUS striking the entire law under the Commerce Clause, which SCOTUS did in their June 28, 2012 ruling.

The singular act of Justice Department lawyers presenting the Affordable Care Act as a tax before the US Supreme Court, while politicians and the Obama Administration continued to insist to the electorate that it was not, serves as proof positive that the Obama Administration recognized the legislation as a tax from its inception and chose to deceive the electorate in a very concerted and deliberate manner; to lie, to betray the public, in its lust to see this contentious, unpopular and ideologically driven legislation brought to law.

With regard to US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s ruling, it cannot be said that he did not serve the United States Constitution in his opinion:

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause...That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

It needs to be noted – and through eyes of honesty – that Roberts stressed on several occasions during the reading of his opinion that the decision does not speak to the “merits” of the law, saying:

“We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders.”

If we who embrace constructionist constitutional values are to live up to that moniker, we cannot chide Chief Justice Roberts for refusing to be activist. Would Chief Justice Roberts have struck Obamacare on the grounds that Congress did not have the authority to levy this tax, he most certainly would have been practicing judicial activism. Remember, the question posed to the SCOTUS defended “a tax” and Congress’s “power to tax.” Congress has that authority per the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

This is why it is intensely important to recognize the purposeful “bait and switch” scheme that the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats perpetrated on both the American people and the SCOTUS, doing so with the hope that Americans of all stripes – Conservative and Liberal – who disagree with socialized medical insurance, would place blame at the feet of the High Court. Truthfully, it is a grave error to place blame on the US Supreme Court. Truthfully, it is appropriate to punish and penalize congressional Democrats and President Obama himself for deceiving, for lying, to the American people in their pursuit of this indisputably ideological piece of legislation.

The debate over a national health insurance is just beginning. Congressional Republicans will move in days to come to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, with Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), saying:

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.”

Additionally, the issue of the Affordable Care Act is now equally as potent as the anemic economy where 2012 presidential politics is concerned and has, without doubt, served to re-invigorate the TEA Party Movement, which was born of this issue, exclusively.

To me, and many that I know and respect, the issue of “truth,” of “honesty,” has become a pinnacle issue, not only for this Presidential Election cycle, and not only as a general political issue, but as a societal crisis of epic proportions. For too long Americans have both rolled their collective eyes and chuckled at the many political spin doctors and operatives who contort the truth in order to paint their political champions in a favorable light. For far too long we have allowed many charged with the public trust to manipulate the truth and/or omit issue substance where that substance changes the meaning of a situation’s reality; or an issues reality. Because of this, we have arrived at a time where the President of the United States – along with his representatives – and members of Congress can purposefully and intentionally deceive the very electorate they are supposed to serve in an effort to fundamentally change the relationship between government and citizen to the benefit of the government.

In 2009, President Obama, in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, when asked if the ramifications of Obamacare presented in a tax increase, said:

“No. That’s not true, George. The...for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.”

And when Stephanopoulos responded, “But it may be fair, it may be good public policy,” President Obama looked him directly in the eye and said:

“No, but...but, George, you...you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”

Today, June 28, 2012, the Unite States Supreme Court essentially called President Obama and congressional Democrats on their disingenuous and deceitful rhetoric. If the SCOTUS ruling were to be summed up on a bumper-sticker it would read:

“They fed us lies, and our taxes rise.”

In the end, Mr. Obama was correct in his 2008 campaign rhetoric. Words do matter. Something tells me he is going to understand the raw power of that truth in November.

39 Comments

Comment by Tony Ruba June 29, 2012 @ 9:34 am

I usually agree with Frank’s articles on this site, but in this case he made one fatal flaw – Obamacare cannot be a tax based on the idea that the people who refuse coverage are being “taxed”! For example, income tax is tax on money you receive – there is no money received here! Sales tax is tax on something you buy – you are not buying anything here! What kink of tax is this? It was never defined by the Supreme Court! Mark Levin made a very clear argument against what Judge Roberts did at:http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364

A must listen, item to understand the jumble twist of legal pretzel making that has happened to our Constitution.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.0/5 (15 votes cast)

Comment by Jota_ June 29, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

“What kink of tax is this?”

It is a tax on health, which is designed to make us all sick!

And precisely the reason why they did not want anyone to see it as a tax

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.1/5 (14 votes cast)

Comment by tea1 June 29, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

It is a tax on those who fail to comply with Govt. demands. For those who comply with the govt. demand it is then a premium payment for little to no health care. In other words it’s a non compliance tax except in the bill it was never referred to as a tax it is a penalty for non-compliance. Injustice Roberts decided to change the bill from a legislated mandate to a legislated tax so he could uphold this garbage. No Judge has the authority to create or recreate law to meet his or her desire to crate their own legacy at the expense of the American people.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 3.8/5 (15 votes cast)

Comment by Vicki June 29, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

It is not at all as complex as many of you have said. All Chief Justice Roberts did is recognize that this is a DIRECT tax. It is constitutional.

What is also true is that there is the option for a 100% deduction if you go buy approved health insurance. Not unlike the deduction you get from paying interest on a mortgage if you go buy a house on credit.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 2.4/5 (14 votes cast)

Comment by LAPhil June 30, 2012 @ 9:23 am

Exactly right, Tony. A tax and a penalty are two entirely different things. The mandate comes with a penalty for not participating in the purchase of insurance, which is not a tax. Like you said, a tax by definition applies to something purchased or earned and is not strictly punitive in nature. Justice Roberts played fast and loose with semantics here for some unknown reason, and I totally suspect an ulterior motive.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast)

Comment by Carmine June 30, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

Being a Brooklyn Italian I tend to look at things differently. I don’t think that there was an ulterior motive. I think it was personal. There is some talk that Hillary quit the campaign with Obama because someone from the Obama organization put a threat on Chelsey. True or not I don’t know, but the idea did surface. There just might be some of that kind of smoke here. Hope I am just blowing smoke myself.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Comment by Blu Owen July 1, 2012 @ 8:29 am

Vicki, you stated, “It is not at all as complex as many of you have said. All Chief Justice Roberts did is recognize that this is a DIRECT tax. It is constitutional.” If that is true then this is classified as a revenue bill and Art. I, §7, cl. 1, of the Constitution must be followed.
When H.R. 3590 was originally presented to the Senate it was a revenue bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members. The Senate put forth Amendment #2786 it’s stated purpose was to substitute all the wording in the bill with the exception of the establishment clause with the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. In no way does this meet any legal definition of the word “Amendment”. This would mean that the Senate at that point in time actually violated Art. I, §7, cl. 1, of the Constitution in that not only was the name of the bill changed but also every word in the bill with the exception of the establishment clause.
I firmly feel and believe, that even though the “House” later approved the ACT, because the “House” DID NOT ORIGINATE any of the original wording in the ACT, and the total actual substance of the bill including the title was written by the Senate the ACT should be found Unconstitutional under Art. I, §7, cl. 1, of the Constitution.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)

Comment by canada3dayer July 1, 2012 @ 9:34 pm

the more I think about this, the more I agree with those that say Justice Roberts did our side a FAVOUR in declaring this a tax. after all, didn’t Obama say he would not raise taxes on the middle class? well, guess what skippy this raises them a LOT on the middle class! more ammo for the Repubs during the debates.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Comment by genesal July 1, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

Yes and no. Closed the Commerce Clause a little bit but opened a gigantic Tax Loophole. Now they can tax anything or even nothing. That’s no favor!

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Comment by deaconblue July 2, 2012 @ 11:04 am

It is not the courts job to protect the people from those that they elect to offices

It is the courts job to determine the Constitutionality of laws implemented by those in office

The whole Health Care Law was a “bait and switch” and Roberts called the administration on and put the law right back in the hands of the people, where it belongs.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)

Comment by Jota_ June 29, 2012 @ 10:23 am

And when someone needs to deceive to be believed, then how much more smoke is in the package?

There are only two questions

Will enough taxes be raised to keep it from adding to the deficit?

And

How will cost be controlled?

In a capitalist market cost are controlled by giving the most business to the low cost producer, government controls cost by taking away, or not funding

The first results in faster, better, cheaper. The second results in Soviet Unions and collapse

And most any tax the Democrats design, a portion always finds its way back to the campaign coffers of the Democrat Party. Since they create no wealth they always have to feed off the flesh of the productive. Maybe they plan to unionize the nurses and doctors next?

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.4/5 (19 votes cast)

Comment by cdrcody June 30, 2012 @ 6:16 pm

Hey, inluminatuo, stop giving them ideas. They have enough lousy ones as it is.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)

Comment by deaconblue July 2, 2012 @ 11:10 am

Most of the talking heads and some congress people are voicing strong opposition to the Roberts Court.
I refer to what Judge Roberts said in the brief ” It is not this courts place to protect Citizens from the officials that they elected. It is our place to render a ruling as to the constitutionality of the laws those officials impose.
That is exactly what this ruling has done.
One – It has place the Healthcare right back in the hands of the people and at the same time made it a major election topic.
Two – It has made the Obama administration admit to implementing the largest taxes raise in US history.
The Roberts Court will cost Obama the election, but most of the reactionary small minds can not or will not see that.
For Roberts to come right out and say what I have written, would place him in a bad light as a Judicial Activist.

I believe he knew exactly what he was doing.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Comment by amzdesigner June 29, 2012 @ 11:24 am

Well said, Frank, and you capture the sentiments of this household, as well. “TRUTH AND HONESTY”, I find, are not “profitable” motives and those intent on maneuvering or shading reality fear demise, which, of course, would absolutely be the case if the “truth” were really to be told.

We free and “income” taxed Americans are all confused, because some people think we should have a better Nationalized Health Care Insurance Program similar to other Socialized Medicine Counties. But, what is not clearly understood, or even discussed, is that the common people in those other Socialized Medicine Countries are the ones who are “taxed” to the hilt to pay for it!

Another aspect being, that in these other Socialized Medicine Countries, it is the common man who is favored with greater “income” earnings instead of the major corporations.

Completely opposite of our Capitalist System where Big Corporations reap the most “profits” instead of the common man who work for the Big Corporations for a “minimum wage.”

Nobody is against Health Insurance for everybody especially when the Health Care Industry and the Health Insurance Industry is so expensive even we, who pay exorbitant monthly premiums to have Health Insurance, can barely afford it, so lets get “real” here for a minute, PLEASE.

Nobody can “make me” carry health insurance, and nobody can “make me” get married if I don’t want to, either. But, if major corporations are turning “profits” on the backs of the minimum wage workers, (whom I believe make up the majority of those who can’t afford health insurance premiums), why aren’t they being targeted with a “tax” instead of the common man???

Well, it’s simple, doing that would “truthfully” CUT INTO THEIR PROFITS, wouldn’t it, DUH! “What do you think I am, stupid or something?” If we can get somebody else to pay for it, why not? Don’t tell me there aren’t Big Corporation Lobbyists behind all of this.

You want to charge exorbitant monthly premiums to have Health Insurance, fine, then raise my wages so I can afford it!

I mean, really, let’s get “real” Justice Roberts, come down off your ivory (you don’t have to worry about paying for your health insurance for the rest of your life) tower and rule on whether “making” people carry Health Insurance, as “mandatory”, is Constitutional, first, then, worry about ruling on whether a “rose is still a rose” “tax” is Constitutional.

The Constitution of the United States, by which we all live and trust as “truth” of our “common” American System, is for the purpose of benefiting all Americans, not just the poor or the rich or the privileged or the under-privileged and especially those who don’t want to carry their own weight.

What else disturbs me about all this are the sign-waving supporters. What on earth do they think they know about this insanity that the rest of us don’t know? How can there be such a huge chasm that has opened up between so many Americans? There are absolutely two distinct camps in America today. How did this happen? What are we going to do about all these dumb people??
What are we going to do about all the dead people that are somehow going to vote this November?

What are we going to do about all the non-existent people that are going to vote this November?

What are we going to do about all the people who are going to vote twice or three times or more this November?

I don’t believe for a minute this President or this administration is going to give up the power they have. Whatever crooked, dirty, racist thing they have to do, I believe they will. How will we prevent that.

I think all or most of the sign waving “supporters” were PAID to stand there, wave signs and look happy. and I am about to become seriously politically incorrect now, you have been warned. not to paint all with the same brush but I believe you all will know what I’m talking about. about the sign-wavers: chances are if they were black, they’re welfare queens; if they were Hispanic they’re illegal. if they’re young, they are either still in or just came out of the “indoctrication” system and are still drunk on the “first black president” kool-aid. in any event, the first two groups have the most to lose by Obamacare’s repeal and the last bunch will be getting a serious wake-up call soon because they’re completely clueless about how life works.

as for the dead/non-existent/multiple voters, well that’s just the Chicago way – Vote Early and Vote Often!

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.7/5 (14 votes cast)

Comment by joelinpdx June 29, 2012 @ 11:48 pm

Today. smart Republicans are rejoicing at the SCOTUS ruling on Obozocare. I refuse, by the way, to call it the Affordable Care Act because the one thing it doesn’t do is make health care affordable.

Why should Republicans be rejoicing? Well, for several reasons.

First, for the reasons stated here. Despite months of saying otherwise, the Obozo administration must now explain to the American people why it is raising taxes and more so why it is raising taxes on people who make less than $250,000. The main plank of Obozo’s platform has been that he would hold the line on tax increases for wage earners below $250K. He will probably lie and try to tell the American people that he has kept that promise but it’s highly unlikely that he will be believed.

Second, we get to keep Obozocare as an issue for November. If the court had overturned the unconstitutional law — and remember they did rule it was unconstitutional as part of the commerce clause, basically overturning Obozo — the issue would have faded into the background noise. Now, Obozocare will remain front and center, second as an issue to only the economy. Obozo will spend the next four months trying to defend Obzozcare just as he and Pelousy were forced to do in 2010. The results will be the same as 2010. Democlowns will not retake the House, they will lose control of the Senate and the residents will change at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Third, Obozo was overturned on Medicaid. SCOTUS ruled that Obozo could not require the states to provide Medicaid to every person at poverty plus one-third…or about 25 percent of the population. This is an important part of Obozocare and just how Obozocare will be funded is now up in the air because of the decision on Medicaid.

So, rejoice Republicans. The Supreme Court of the United States has assured us a sweeping victory in November.

Maybe not sweeping, but hopefully a victory. This decision has certainly fired up the Republican base, and it was probably better that the decision came down the way it did for the sake of the election. Excellent post, BTW.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)

Comment by yaquijack June 30, 2012 @ 10:43 am

Joel is right on the money with his evaluation! SCOTUS has done us a real favor. We should be very pleased with the “political position” that SCOTUS has provided.This is a classic example of the the old queston “Is the glass half-full or half-empty”? Keep in mind, that a TAX has to be approved by the Congress..and THEY can just as readily disapprove it, it is within their constitutional pervue to do so. Joel has extracted the “emotion” from the situation and presented all of the positives that we now have the opportunity to exercise in November..RECYLE all of the RINO’s and DEMOCRAPS…

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)

Comment by bbarrett49 June 30, 2012 @ 8:14 am

Geez… what a day. I hate it when the Supreme Court raises… taxes?… I guess this really is a SCOTUS tax. Are they allowed to do that? I’m pretty sure they are not.

So Levin was on fire this afternoon. I encourage everyone to read the dissenting opinion from Scalia. He makes some very good points. If this is a tax as Roberts has deemed then the law is invalid. Our Constitution clearly specifies that tax law is to originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare originated in the Senate. So if Boehner has any cajones at all, he will simply re-assert the House’s power under Article 1, Section 7 and declare that with this re-classification as a tax the law is no longer constitutional as it did not follow proper procedural process as required in our Constitution. There is no need for a repeal at that point. What would they be repealing, an invalid law?

SCOTUS did not levy a tax, it merely affirmed a tax passed by Obozo and the Congressional Democlowns. As Republicans have said all along, Obozocare is a tax. Obozo traveled all over the country, campaigning on the idea that Obozocare was an amendment to the Commerce Clause, And when Republicans said, “No. Obozocare is a tax,” Obozo accused the Republicans of lying.

Well now we know who was lying (big surprise) and it wasn’t the Republicans. The court ruled Obozo’s Commerce Clause claim to be unconstitutional and said this is, TAH-DAH, a tax.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)

Comment by genesal June 30, 2012 @ 10:37 am

But Congress did levy a tax and thus it being a TAX makes the Act unconstitutional, as bbarrett49 states.

Is this is bombshell of a revelation or what? This means that Roberts made a totally bone-headed mistake! Why has no one in the media brought up this point, especially all those lawyers and legal experts who say Obamacare is a bad law? Can this case go back to the Supreme Court on these grounds for review when it’s obvious the decision was based on an error?

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)

Comment by tea1 June 30, 2012 @ 9:15 am

I have to admit that since Obamacare is now ruled to be a tax. A simple majority in the senate is all that is required to repeal tax legislation. That is a good thing, but I’m not sure that it was worth setting a precedent that govt. can now tax an individual for refusing to engage in any kind of commerce that the govt. requests you to do. I suppose we should now require everyone to buy a gun and a certain amount of ammo on a yearly basis. Those who can not legally own one or refuse to own one can just pay the tax instead.

Since the Act was originated in the Senate, Roberts, might have done us a favor. Stopping progression of the Commerce Clause but not setting a precedent dealing with taxes. Since there is not a Democratic majority in the House another attempt at the Act won’t be made plus the fact the decision has energized the base and the Tea Party.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)

Comment by grannylake June 30, 2012 @ 9:55 am

This whole comtemptable Obamacare mess is so disheartening. As a heatlcare provider with a family of physicians, nurses and advanced nurse practioners, I can speak with knowledge and experience that this program will destroy the healthcare freedoms that are currently available. The mandates and controls placed on healthcare providers will drive the best and brightest out of and away from the healthcare professions.

The healthcare system will not improve until the government backs away and puts the individual citizens’ care back in the hands of the patient and the doctors.

People have no incentative to live a healthy lifestyle and government diet and exercise programs and recommendationsare laughable. Today people get at fat as they choose, drink as much as they want, take any drug they can get, and live any abhorrent lifestyle they choose and they can still get their healthcare covered with little or no financial responsibility to them. Women can have pregancies terminated or get “free” medical care for themselves during pregnancy and for their newborn children through age 18 years with no financial responsibility to them.

Until unacceptable behavior is scorned and penalized rather than condoned and rewarded, Americans will continue to pay for the undeserving. The ONLY people that should be receiving healthcare assistance from the US government are American citizens that are: poor children, poor elderly, mentally and physically disabled and the active US servicemen and disabled servicemen and their families. Any others that need care would have to look to churches, charities or family and friends.

America cannot continue supporting the undeserving by borrowing and over-taxing the American worker. Sound harsh? Yes, well living in a socialist/communist state would be harsh and without freedom.

Over the next decade, this law will generate Trillions of Slush fund money for the DemiCommies. The Slush fund money will be funneled back to the OCommie supporters in ways that can be argued are not kickback. Sort of like the Corn-Husker Kickback. Anyway, follow the money. I think the decision for the DemiCommie party is worth a kickback of a billion a year for the life of the Traitor John Roberts. I hope the CIA/FBI is in a Patriots hands and the money is tracked and the Traitor is hung. As the Chicago Mob Leader says, “Bribe you Friends and Murder your enemies.

Roberts could have killed it right then and there. Now all we have to do is make 21 points in 2 minutes. Where is Roger Stauback when you need him. That will be at least 1000 Hail Marys Please. He is a traitor.

Think back to the Clinton administration when Bill was getting his cookies off under the desk and Hillary was ruining things, one of her tax schemes was a little thing called, “assumed income”, which ment for example if you purchased your house years ago for 20K and is now worth 120K and the current rental cost per month of your homne is $1,200.00, you are “assumed” to be only paying $200.00 monthly rent so therefor your “Assumed income” would be $1,000.00 per month times 12 months so therefor your ordinary income would be adjusted upward for the tax year an additional $12,000.00. It went down in flames because Bill & Hill were unable to get it through a Republican Congress and Senate. Therefore, no matter what lies Obama and his cronies call ObamaCare, it is a TAX and no amount of spin will nor should change that fact. If you vote to re-elect this lying sob Obama you are one big stupid idiot. You deserve to be taxed out of existance, I don’t. I have been on this earth for over 72 years and have always purchased health insurance for myself and my family because I am responsible. Now Lying Obama once again rewards those unresponsible, illegal worthless people just to garner more votes. This is bull s—and it MUST STOP!

He was a coward indeed. I can’t think of a better word for someone entrusted with the greatest responsibility of any court in the land to so conveniently sell out his principles. This is going to stick to Roberts for the rest of his life. I just wonder how he’ll be able to live with himself after this.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

Rate this comment:

please wait...

Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)

Comment by grannylake July 1, 2012 @ 9:29 am

The SCOTUS does not write law. They should have sent the law back to Congress and said as it stands it is not Constitutional. Rewrite the law under the Tax Provision and it will be Constitutional. Roberts should have made the Obama and the Democrats call all of their mandates a TAXES.

Your vote counts big time in 2012, make sure you and all your friends and family clean the white house.

It is critical.

HOME SALES TAX

I thought you might find this interesting, — maybe even SICKENING!

The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, — before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren’t the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?

Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen?

It’s in the health care bill, — and it goes into effect in 2013.

Why 2013?

Could it be so that it doesn’t come to light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is ‘change you can believe in’?

Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax.

If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.

This bill is set to screw the retiring generation, — who often downsize their homes.

Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important? Oh, you weren’t aware that this was in the Obama-Care bill? Guess what; you aren’t alone! There are more than a few members of Congress that weren’t aware of it either. You can check this out for yourself at:

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A TAX PERSON THIS MAY MAKE YOU GET ONE.
I am not a tax person and I would like a tax person to comment on this thread because it looks like even the retired people will be affected by this.
Canada3dayer, after searching the actual Act, I believe you may be correct.
Actually this tax increase is found under “CHAPTER 2A—UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION”. Besides the profits realized from the sale of one’s home here are some other types of unearned income as detailed in a Social Security handbook:
“Unearned income” is all income that is not earned. Some common types of unearned income are:
In-kind support and maintenance (food or shelter) given to an individual or received by an individual because someone else paid for it (see §§2140-2142); Private pensions and annuities; Periodic public payments such as Social Security benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs pension and compensation payments, civil service annuities, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, and payments based on need involving Federal funds; Life insurance proceeds and other death benefits, to the extent that the total amount is more than the expenses of the deceased person’s last illness and burial paid by the individual; Gifts and inheritances; Support and alimony payments in cash or in-kind; Prizes and awards; Dividends and interest; Rents and royalties (except those royalties defined as earned income); and Certain payments not considered wages for Social Security purposes: In-kind payments to certain agricultural workers; Tips under $20 per month; Jury fees; Money paid to individuals who are residents, but not employees, of institutions.